Skip to comments.
Former Guns & Ammo columnist speaks out on becoming 'a pariah'
Foxnews ^
| Jan 5, 2014
| Staff
Posted on 01/05/2014 4:33:04 PM PST by driftdiver
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-67 next last
The stupid, it burns.
To: driftdiver
Nothings has changed. He is still a pariah and an absolute dumb ass.
To: driftdiver
Funny how the guy who is trying to “disappear” stuff like the word “inalienable” when it comes to rights complains about being “disappeared” when he’s evidently out there with the media giving him a soapbox.
3
posted on
01/05/2014 4:36:50 PM PST
by
Olog-hai
To: driftdiver
All rights have limits but Metcalf’s argument was for infringement.
No one says you should be able to pull your gun and point it at someone for the fun of it.
What Metcalf supported was clearly an attack on the right to keep and bear arms not some reasonable regulation.
4
posted on
01/05/2014 4:38:59 PM PST
by
yarddog
(Romans 8: verses 38 and 39. "For I am persuaded".)
To: driftdiver
People think it means giving up your principles.Go figure...
5
posted on
01/05/2014 4:39:32 PM PST
by
muir_redwoods
(When I first read it, " Atlas Shrugged" was fiction)
To: driftdiver
“If you only cut off my foot, it’s not like you cut off my leg.” Chip, chip, chip. Glad they chunked his dumbazz.
6
posted on
01/05/2014 4:40:01 PM PST
by
Conspiracy Guy
(Did the ancients know they were ancients? Or did they see themselves as presents?)
To: driftdiver
Compromise is a bad word these days, Dick Metcalf, 67, told The New York Times of what he believes is the unyielding, give-no-ground ethos adopted by Second Amendment supporters in the U.S. today. People think it means giving up your principles."In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."--Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
To: yarddog
Their reasonable regulation is always a one way dead end street.
8
posted on
01/05/2014 4:43:45 PM PST
by
driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
To: Conspiracy Guy
Chip, chip, chip. That's the point right there, and that's why this is different from the Phil Robertson controversy. Robertson wasn't advocating the scaling back of any "right." But Metcalf was.
9
posted on
01/05/2014 4:45:25 PM PST
by
Leaning Right
(Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
To: driftdiver
Like my grandfather told me, “boy, you don’t poop where you eat.”
it is true, but he did not say poop.
10
posted on
01/05/2014 4:46:39 PM PST
by
hadaclueonce
(Because Brawndo's got electrolytes. Because Ethanol has Big Corn Lobby)
To: driftdiver
Yep, a compromise is when both sides give up something.
Unfortunately too many times the gun owner’s representatives think compromise is giving them less than they ask for. All they have to do is demand even more the next time, then take less again. They never give up anything, just take less each time until they get it all.
11
posted on
01/05/2014 4:48:10 PM PST
by
yarddog
(Romans 8: verses 38 and 39. "For I am persuaded".)
To: Leaning Right
12
posted on
01/05/2014 4:48:28 PM PST
by
Conspiracy Guy
(Did the ancients know they were ancients? Or did they see themselves as presents?)
To: driftdiver
No negotiating with the Constitution, buddy.
13
posted on
01/05/2014 4:53:16 PM PST
by
bboop
(does not suffer fools gladly)
To: driftdiver
I can compromise on preferences. If I compromise on principles, they were never principles, but also preferences.
To: driftdiver
"Ive been vanished, disappeared. Now you see him. Now you dont. And that's a good thing.
15
posted on
01/05/2014 4:54:40 PM PST
by
PGR88
To: driftdiver
16
posted on
01/05/2014 4:56:13 PM PST
by
FreedomPoster
(Islam delenda est)
To: driftdiver
This is the second story on this today. I don’t recall the source of the first, e.g, if it was FoxNews, but this is a two month old story. Bottom line is simple ... the bill of rights were written to protect the people from the Federal government, not the government from the people and not from people from each other. If you lose track of that while you are writing to a constitutionally informed audience, they will turn on you. What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ did he not understand? F him.
17
posted on
01/05/2014 4:56:21 PM PST
by
ConservativeInPA
(We need to fundamentally transform RATs lives for their lies.)
To: driftdiver
18
posted on
01/05/2014 4:57:48 PM PST
by
smokingfrog
( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
To: driftdiver
The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be. Clearly does not understand that rights are not granted us by the Constitution. How this doofus ever got to be a writer for a conservative publication is beyond me. He obviously doesn't grasp the basics of conservatism, let alone the right to keep and bear arms.
19
posted on
01/05/2014 4:57:54 PM PST
by
IronJack
To: driftdiver
This former Guns & Ammo subscriber has no sympathy for a pariah.
20
posted on
01/05/2014 4:59:11 PM PST
by
aomagrat
(Gun owners who vote for democrats are too stupid to own guns.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-67 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson